Summary
The Supreme Court rejected a university College Development Council director’s claim to continue after two three-year terms. The advertisement expressly limited tenure, and the governing UGC guideline applied that limit to all appointees, not only deputationists. The High Court’s unchallenged decision preserving the Council did not entitle this appellant to remain its director.
Issues
- Whether the guideline’s tenure limitation applied only to deputationists and permitted the appellant to continue as director after two terms.
Provisions considered
- Clause 3, UGC Revised Guidelines for Establishment of College Development Councils in UniversitiesRead as a whole, the tenure restriction governed every appointment to the post; the separate deputation-allowance sentence did not restrict its reach. (¶¶ 10, 11, 12, 13)
Held
- The advertisement gave notice of a three-year tenure. Omission of tenure from the appointment order did not alter the terms on which applications had been invited and appointment made. (¶ 9)
- Clause 3 used the relevant pronoun for the pay and tenure of the Coordinator, Director or Dean generally. The intervening sentence merely addressed deputation allowances; the following tenure limit was not confined to deputationists. (¶¶ 10, 11, 12)
- Having served two three-year terms, the appellant could not continue as Director. The separate ruling against abolition of the Council was not under challenge. (¶¶ 5, 13, 14)
Result
Appeal dismissed without costs; High Court’s refusal to continue the appellant as Director sustained. Contempt petition did not survive dismissal of the appeal.